For those who love downtown Richmond -- count us among the horde -- the enthusiasm surrounding the proposed Master Plan bodes well for the inner city's future. Richmond went out of its way to bring the public into the process. The result was an optimistic document that should help the city make better use of its ample assets, including the James River and a stock of historic buildings that's as impressive as any in the country.

The Planning Commission has been charged with forging the Master Plan's aspirations into a workable document that recognizes realities, including the rights of private property owners as well as the substantial presence of state government and Virginia Commonwealth University. The publicly owned buildings offer an especially complex set of benefits and challenges.

The state's contribution to the vitality of downtown is undeniable. That's equally true of VCU's medical campus in the northeast corner of downtown and its academic campus along the western borders. But the public buildings also present complications. They lower the city's tax base -- and decisions concerning their fate are largely beyond the control or influence of city officials. The state and VCU are not bound by city planning documents.

We support any efforts to increase reimbursement to the city for the revenue it loses because of its service as capital of the commonwealth. But we believe also that both the state and university have been sensitive to the needs and concerns of the city. As independent entities, they could simply ignore the city's wishes.

So we find it more than a little disturbing that some voices have decided to attack the Planning Commission -- and especially its able chairman, Robert Mills, the respected architect and preservationist -- for acknowledging the realities of the relationship between Richmond and its largest public landowners.

Mills has praised the Downtown Master Plan. He says the Planning Commission supports at least 90 percent of the document and believes it offers good ideas for the future. Unfortunately, some of the plan's most vocal proponents seem to reject any attempt to adapt its broad vision to reflect realities on the ground. Even more regrettably, a few have chosen to make personal attacks on Mills, which are completely unwarranted.

The Planning Commission has been admirably open in its consideration of the Master Plan and has held public hearings around the city. Progress would be better served if the commission's critics adopted a similar level of consideration as the public debate ensues.

Downtown needs a bold and creative plan. It also needs a plan that will work. That's precisely the document the Planning Commission is working to hammer out.